There's different versions of that meme, so please make sure you know which one you're arguing about.

Edit: a long take on all the variations, by the meme's originator! https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-mem...

We clearly have different interpretations of that metaphor.

The point is to demonstrate agency over the systems we create. What’s the flip side of that scenario? People aren’t given stools to stand on and tall people get to watch while short people don’t? Who built the fence? Why is it that height? Why aren’t there bleachers?

Is just sitting there doing nothing equality of opportunity somehow?

That cartoon literally ends with the resolution of all three heads being at the same height. It's depicting the equality of their outcomes. And it's hailing it as the goal to be achieved. The point isn't that stools are handed out demonstrating agency, but that they're handed out with the goal of outcome equality.

I think the outcome is that they all get to watch the game. I guess you can call that "equality of outcomes".

I think reading "head height" as the outcome, is a very short-sighted interpretation.

Like anything else, interpretation has nuance and you could read it both ways. On HN we're supposed to address "the strongest possible interpretation" in our comments, so I would try to apply that principle here as well...

What’s the parallel of that metaphor wherein only equality of opportunity is sought, though?

The fence is 100 feet high and requires climbing an arduous ladder to see over it. One of the people decides not to climb it.

Equity of outcome can be a worthwhile goal if that outcome is a boolean opportunity for example, as in case of the cartoon. Also, setting the boolean to the worse value for everyone is not a morally good solution in my opinion - that way noone will see the game.